In a surprising move, Elon Musk, known for his ventures in technology and space, has launched a controversial $1 million-a-day giveaway aimed at swing state voters. This lottery-style program, organized by his political action committee (PAC), has already handed out $17 million to individuals who signed a petition promoting "free speech" and gun rights. However, critics argue that the initiative may skirt federal laws designed to prevent financial incentives for voting, raising questions about its legality and potential impact on the upcoming election.
The Legal Debate: Incentivizing Voter Registration
Musk's giveaway has come under scrutiny due to a federal law that prohibits offering money or incentives to encourage people to register to vote or participate in an election. According to Richard Hasen, director of the Safeguarding Democracy Project at UCLA Law School, the program could carry "potential criminal liability," warranting an investigation by the Department of Justice (DOJ). If it’s found that Musk’s program violates these laws, the consequences could include fines or even jail time.
Philadelphia District Attorney Larry Krasner attempted to block the giveaway in Pennsylvania, arguing that it constituted an illegal lottery under the state's consumer protection laws. However, Judge Angelo Foglietta allowed the contest to proceed, with Musk’s PAC defending the giveaway as a legitimate "spokesperson" program rather than a game of chance.
Targeting Swing State Voters
The program specifically targets registered voters in swing states such as Arizona, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, and Wisconsin. This list of states is critical to the 2024 presidential race, with the outcome likely to hinge on a few key battlegrounds. To participate, voters must sign Musk’s petition, which champions the First and Second Amendments. Although the petition is open to any registered voter, its emphasis on free speech and gun rights may appeal to Trump supporters, aligning Musk’s campaign with a pro-Trump voter base.
This targeted approach has sparked legal concerns from groups such as Public Citizen, which filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) arguing that Musk’s PAC aims to influence voter registration in favor of Trump’s campaign. The DOJ has reportedly warned Musk’s team about potential legal issues, but no official investigation has been launched.
Legal Gray Areas and Precedents
The legal issues surrounding Musk’s giveaway are complex, partly due to ambiguities in federal law. The law broadly prohibits "anything of value" from being offered in exchange for voting-related activity, which has been interpreted to include even small incentives like free ice cream on Election Day. In 2008, Ben & Jerry’s received a cease-and-desist letter for offering free cones to individuals with "I Voted" stickers, ultimately changing their promotion to offer ice cream to everyone.
Musk’s program, however, involves signing a petition rather than direct voting or voter registration incentives. According to David Becker, executive director of the Center for Election Innovation & Research, the program’s structure may still be seen as a workaround to attract Trump-leaning voters. Daniel Weiner, director of the Brennan Center’s Elections & Government Program, adds that the legality of using a petition to target a specific group of voters remains legally murky, as the law is not explicit about such scenarios.
Political Reactions and Public Concern
Musk’s initiative has drawn bipartisan attention, with Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro, a Democrat, calling the contest "concerning" and urging law enforcement to take a closer look. While some lawmakers argue that the program could unfairly sway the election by incentivizing pro-Trump voters, others believe it falls within legal bounds as a "petition drive" rather than a voting incentive.
Should the DOJ decide to investigate, it may issue a cease-and-desist order, similar to the one Ben & Jerry’s received. However, given the proximity to Election Day, the DOJ may avoid pursuing legal action until after the election to prevent any appearance of federal interference.
What’s Next?
Whether Musk’s program is ultimately deemed legal will likely depend on the courts' interpretation of what constitutes "paying for voting activity." With Election Day just around the corner, any DOJ intervention is unlikely to occur before votes are cast. Experts like Weiner suggest that if the DOJ decides to act, it will likely wait until after the election to avoid perceptions of bias.
In the meantime, Musk’s PAC continues to distribute funds to petition signees in swing states. While the legality remains in question, the implications of this giveaway are clear: it has created a new layer of complexity in an already contentious election season, raising questions about the influence of private wealth in democratic processes and the boundaries of legal voter engagement tactics.